5 ms·
I'm not a physicist, but that was my thought exactly. Black holes are weird objects, they are enormous, have huge mass and density, almost no radiation, have g
by kovrik 9y ago
I'm not a physicist, but that was my thought exactly.
Black holes are weird objects, they are enormous, have huge mass and density, almost no radiation, have great gravitational effect on surroundings and they are hard to detect etc.
They seem like a perfect candidate for 'dark matter'.
Could anyone explain why it is wrong?
- grzm 9y agoThey're detectable and already taken into account.
- cwmma 9y agoSo according to wikipedia [1] they have been looked into, they would fall under the category of MACHOs 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Baryonic_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Baryonic_matter
- cozzyd 9y agoBlack Holes of reasonable can be detected by gravitational lensing. If Black Holes / Brown Dwarfs / etc. were primarily responsible for the dark matter locally, lensing searches would have detected more. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0002058 https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0002058 for an overview.
- domevent 9y agoThis graphic can explain very clearly, although it’s a little old. The result is that constraints today are even tighter though, so for these purposes it’s still useful. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UN8jPwzj2qI/V9hRVCG1HBI/AAAAAAAACBA/cvuTent6YO4QarFX7XUYgrg6sDinHdglwCK4B/s1600/DirectDetection.png https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UN8jPwzj2qI/V9hRVCG1HBI/AAAAAAAAC...